Table 3.
Results for treatment of visual neglect/ inattention
| Study | Study design | Aim/ objective | Number of participants | Type of population | Intervention | Time/ duration of intervention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beis et al. (1999) | RCT | Compare control with occlusion | n = 22 |
Right sided vascular lesion. 42–56 days post stroke. |
Half eye patches versus full eye patches | Glasses with occlusion were worn 12 hr a day for 3 months |
| Bowen et al. (2013) | Cochrane systematic review | Assess whether cognitive rehabilitation improved neglect |
23 studies n = 628 |
Stroke |
Top‐down approaches Bottom‐up approaches Mixed approaches |
Various dependant on intervention type (4 days–2 months) |
|
Cherney et al. (2002) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) |
RCT | A comparison of two approaches to treat unilateral neglect (top down approach) | n = 4 |
Stroke Right hemisphere |
Visual scanning, practising letter and word cancellation tasks versus repetitive practise of functional task/ oral reading |
Both groups = 20 sessions Frequency of sessions unknown |
|
Cottam (1987) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) |
RCT | Assessing visual scanning training for left hemispatial neglect (top down approach) | n = 12 | Stroke |
Visual scanning in three separate phases: Scanning a light board when stationary, while self‐propelling, and naming objects present on both sides |
Each phase = 5× 5 hr sessions (5 days) |
| Datié et al. (2006) | Prospective observational study | Investigate the use of prisms for neglect |
n = 20 patients n = 15 healthy volunteers |
Unilateral vascular lesion with left sided neglect | Prisms | 15 min of prism adaptation |
|
Edmans et al. (2000) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) |
RCT |
To compare the effectiveness of the transfer of training and functional approaches in improving perceptual and functional abilities after stroke (top down approach) |
n = 42 | Stroke | Cueing and feedback teach compensation versus functional approaches | Both groups = 2.5 hr of training per week for 6 weeks |
| Fanthome et al. (1995) | RCT | The treatment of neglect using feedback eye movements (top down approach) | n = 18 |
Stroke Right hemispheric |
Specially adapted glasses with auditory signal versus no treatment | 2 hr 40 min per week for 4 weeks |
|
Ferreira et al. (2011) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) |
RCT | To compare mental practice versus visual scanning to treat neglect (top down approaches) | n = 10 |
Stroke Right hemispheric |
Visual scanning versus mental practice | 10× 1 hr sessions over 5 weeks |
| Fong et al. (2007) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT | To assess the effect of trunk rotation with and without hemifield eye patching to treat neglect (bottom up approach) | n = 60 | Stroke | Voluntary trunk rotation versus Trunk rotation with hemi field eye patching versus conventional OT (control) | Trunk rotation = 1 hr per day (15 min ADLs and 45 min trunk rotation) for 5 day per week for 30 days (30 hr) |
| Freeman and Rudge (1987) |
Prospective observational study |
Identify the orthoptic problems associated with stroke | n = 76 | Stroke |
Advice (for field defect and inattention, n = 4) occlusion (n = 10), prisms (n = 7), registered blind (n = 2), observation (n = 20), glasses (n = 5) |
Within 1 week post stroke. Follow‐up ranged from 1 week to 4 years |
| Kalra et al. (1997) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT | To evaluate the effectiveness of spatial cueing during motor activity on functional outcome and resource use in neglect patients (bottom up approach) | n = 50 | Stroke | Conventional therapy versus spatial‐motor cueing | 47.7 hr of conventional therapy over 64 days versus 27.8 hr of therapy with spatial‐motor cueing over 36 days |
| Kerkhoff et al. (2012) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT | To compare the effect of OKS (bottom up) and visual scanning training (top down) in the treatment of neglect | n = 6 | Stroke |
Optokinetic stimulation (OKS) versus Visual scanning training |
Both = 20× treatment sessions for 50 min, 5 sessions per week |
| Kerkhoff et al. (2013) | RCT | Compare the effects of smooth pursuit eye movement therapy on auditory and visual neglect in chronic stroke patients | n = 50 |
Stroke Ischemia n = 37 Hemorrhage n = 8 All had left‐sided visual and auditory neglect. At least 1 month post stroke |
Smooth pursuit eye movement training n = 24 versus Visual scanning training n = 21 |
5× 50 min sessions, over period of 7–9 days. |
| Luukkainen‐Markkula et al. (2009) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT | Comparing visual scanning training (top down) and arm activation training (bottom up) | n = 12 | Stroke |
Visual scanning training versus left arm activation training |
Arm activation = 20–30 hr of left arm activation Visual scanning = 1 hr 4× weekly (10 hr) with OT training 1 hr 2× daily both groups = 48 hr of treatment in 3 weeks |
| Machner et al. (2012) | RCT | To establish if hemifield eye patching or OKS is an effective therapy for neglect in acute stroke patients | n = 21 | Acute right hemispheric stroke patients | Hemifield eye patching and optokinetic stimulation therapy |
OKS = 15 min sessions daily for one month. Eye patch to be worn full time. |
| Menon‐Nair et al. (2007) | Survey | To obtain a response from 61 stroke inpatients | n = 663 | Occupational Therapists | Perceptual training, scanning training, activation treatment, cognitive therapy, eye patch, constraint‐induced therapy, prisms, trans‐electrical nerve stimulation | Not specified |
| Mizuno et al. (2011) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT, multi center, double blinded | Comparing search training with and without prisms (bottom up approach) | n = 38 | Stroke |
Training = pointing at targets whilst sitting – 30× without prisms, 90× with, then 60× without Prisms shift field 12̊ right |
2× daily 20 min sessions, 5 days a week for 2 weeks (20 sessions) |
| Nys et al. (2008) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT, single blinded | To assess the effect of prism adaptation on neglect rehabilitation (bottom up) | n = 16 | Stroke | Prism adaptation | 30 min sessions for 4 days in a row versus placebo |
| Polanowska et al. (2009) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT, double blinded | To assess the effectiveness of left hand stimulation bottom up) combined with scanning training (top down) to treat neglect | n = 40 | Stroke | Electrical somatosensory stimulation to left hand with conventional visual scanning training | 45 min per sessions for 5 days weekly for 1 month (20 sessions) |
| Pollock, Hazelton, & Brady, (2011a) | Survey | To explore the surrent assessments, protocols, referrals, and treatments of visual problems after stroke by OTs | n = 55 | Occupational Therapists | Visual field, eye movement disorders and visual neglect (scanning training, patching/ prisms, ADL training, reading aids/ magnifiers, information, environment modification) |
45% of OTs said they would treat within 2 weeks of stroke. 75% said they would treat patients within 6 weeks of stroke. 38% said they would continue treatment up to 3 months |
| Pollock, Hazleton, & Brady (2011b) | Survey | To explore the current assessments, protocols, referrals, and treatments of visual problems after stroke by Orthoptists | n = 14 | Orthoptists | Visual field, eye movement disorders, and visual neglect (scanning training, patching/ prisms, ADL training, reading aids/ magnifiers, information, environment modification) |
Time of intervention not stated. 86% did not have a protocol/ management plan for visual treatment of stroke patients |
| Robertson (1990) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT |
To assess the effect of microcomputer based rehabilitation on left sided visual neglect (top down) |
n = 30 | Stroke |
Computerized scanning and attention training versus Recreational computing |
14× 75 sessions, 2× weekly for 7 weeks (15 ½ hr) versus 11.4 hr of recreational computing |
| Robertson et al. (2002) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT | To explore whether or not limb activation rehabilitation reduces left sided motor impairment in neglect patients (bottom up) | n = 40 | Stroke |
Wearing a limb activation device during perceptual training versus Perceptual training with inactive limb device |
45 min training per week for 12 weeks |
| Rossi et al. (1990) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT | To assess the use of Fresnel prisms to improve visual perception (bottom up approach) | n = 39 | Stroke |
15 Δ base out hemi‐field prism versus placebo |
Worn for all daytime activities |
| Rusconi et al. (2002) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT | To investigate the effect of cueing on visual scanning therapy to treat neglect (top down) | n = 24 | Stroke | Visual scanning with and without verbal and visuospatial cueing | 5× 1 hr sessions per week for 2 consecutive months (40 sessions) |
| Schroder et al. (2008) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT | A comparison of visual exploration training with and without OKN in the treatment of neglect (combined = bottom up, scanning alone = top down) | n = 30 | Stroke |
Visual exploration versus Visual exploration and OKS |
Both = 20× 25–40 min sessions over 4 weeks |
| Tsang et al. (2009) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT |
To investigate the efficacy of right half‐field eye patching in treating subacute stroke patients with neglect trial. (bottom up) |
n = 35 | Stroke | Conventional OT training with or without half‐field eye patching (right sided) |
5× 60 min OT sessions per week, with or without hemifield eye patching worn for an average 12 hr daily for 4 weeks |
| Turton et al. (2010) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT, single blinded | To assess if prism adaptation therapy helps improve self‐care in stroke patients (bottom up) | n = 37 | Stroke | Prism adaptation training (10Δ) with repeated pointing movements to targets | Training once a day each working day for 2 weeks |
| Weinberg et al. (1977) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT | To test the effect of visual scanning training on reading related tasks (top down) |
n = 57 (25/ 57 reported on as severe data) |
Stroke | Visual scanning training | 1 hr a day for 4 weeks (20 hr of training) |
| Welfringer et al. (2011) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT | The use of visuomotor imagery in neglect rehabilitation (top down) | n = 30 | Stroke | Visuomotor‐imagery therapy | 2× 30 min sessions daily for 3 weeks (28–30 sessions overall) |
| Wiart et al. (1997) Article taken from cochrane review Bowen et al. (2013) | RCT | Trunk rotation and scanning treatment for the rehabilitation of stroke patients with neglect (top down) | n = 22 | Stroke | Experimental treatment with traditional rehabilitation versus Traditional rehabilitation alone | One hour daily for 20 days |
Articles taken from Cochrane reviews are included in this table for information only and are not included in the overall review.